Sri Hanumanthappa vs. M/S Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited

Facts

The appellant, Sri Hanumanthappa, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on December 8, 2018. He alleged that a car bearing registration No.KA-18-P-1336 hit him while he was returning to a temple, causing grievous injuries to his legs, face, eyes, and hands. He was treated at multiple hospitals and claimed to have spent Rs.11,40,000/- towards medical expenses. He was working as a Priest earning Rs.16,000/- per month and stated he was unable to perform his duties and earn income due to the injuries. The respondents, M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and the driver of the offending car, filed written statements denying the claim. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,98,022/- with interest. The claimant, aggrieved by the meager compensation, filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

Held

The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Tribunal's judgment and award. The Court found that while the accident, vehicle involvement, and injuries were not disputed, the compensation awarded was inadequate. The Court determined the claimant's notional income to be Rs.12,500/- per month based on the Legal Services Authority's chart for 2018, retaining the multiplier of '11'. Crucially, the Court assessed the disability at 20% for awarding compensation towards loss of future income, awarding Rs.3,30,000/- as against the Tribunal's Rs.1,06,920/-. Compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- from Rs.10,000/-. The Court accepted the claimant's medical bills totaling Rs.5,30,000/- (including ambulance receipts of Rs.70,000/- that the Tribunal had rejected), stating that GST number was not a ground to deny bills under the Motor Vehicles Act, a welfare legislation. Additional amounts were awarded for attendant, food, nourishment, transportation, miscellaneous expenditure (Rs.1,50,000/-), loss of amenities (Rs.50,000/-), and loss of income during the laid-up period (Rs.2,00,000/-). Further, post-judgment medical bills of Rs.31,713/- were also awarded. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.13,51,713/- from Rs.3,98,022/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, considering the injuries sustained, loss of income, and medical expenses, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? Petitioner's Arguments: - The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and contrary to the evidence on record. - The Tribunal failed to consider the claimant's income, the magnitude of injuries, and the pain and agony suffered. - No compensation was awarded for the loss of income during the laid-up period, and future prospects were not considered. Revenue/State's (Respondent-Insurance Company) Arguments: - The Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. - No proof of income was placed on record to justify compensation for loss of income due to disability. - The Tribunal considered the income at Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded reasonable compensation, which does not warrant interference.